ITAT Surat Judgments — February 2019

The Tribunal found that the completion of shops and receipt of booking advances needed verification by the AO. The issue was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration, applying relevant case law.

The Tribunal found reasonable cause for the assessee's non-compliance due to the accident and subsequent events. Therefore, the assessee was granted one more opportunity to present their case and evidence before the Assessing Officer.

The Tribunal held that since the loan was utilized by the firm for repayment of its outstanding bank loan and no material was placed by the Revenue to suggest individual benefit to the assessee, invoking Section 2(22)(e) was not justified. The Tribunal relied on various High Court and Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal found that the completion of shops and receipt of booking advances needed verification by the AO. The issue was set aside to the AO for de novo consideration, applying relevant case law.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) subject to the payment of costs. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) to have the appeal decided afresh after a reasonable opportunity of hearing.

The Tribunal set aside the ex-parte order of the CIT(A) subject to the payment of costs. The assessee was directed to appear before the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after a reasonable opportunity.

The Tribunal held that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' (hear the other side) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of hearing. Therefore, the appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to provide a proper opportunity of hearing, violating the principle of natural justice (audi alteram partem). The appeal was restored to the Assessing Officer for reconsideration after allowing a proper opportunity of being heard.

The Tribunal held that the principle of audi alteram partem (natural justice) was violated as the assessee was not given a proper opportunity of being heard. The appeal was restored to the CIT(A) for reconsideration.

The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeal by increasing the estimated profit rate on undisclosed receipts from 8% to 12.5%. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal regarding the deletion of additions for the car investment and cash deposits.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing depreciation on CBS capital expenditure at 60% and treating recurring CBS expenses as revenue. It also allowed the provision for NPA as a deductible loss, considering the fraud and subsequent FIRs.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing depreciation on CBS capital expenditure at 60% and treating recurring CBS expenses as revenue. It also allowed the provision for NPA as a deductible loss, considering the fraud and subsequent FIRs.

The Tribunal held that the CIT(E) erred in denying approval under Section 80G(5). The Tribunal found that the religious expenditure was within the permissible limit and that the genuineness of activities or application of funds is not to be examined at the stage of granting registration.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s order, allowing depreciation on CBS capital expenditure at 60% and treating recurring CBS expenses as revenue. It also allowed the provision for NPA as a deductible loss, considering the fraud and subsequent FIRs.

The Tribunal held that the disallowance under Section 40(a)(ia) was legally valid due to non-submission of Forms 15G/15H. However, following a precedent, the disallowance was restricted to 30% of the total disallowed expenditure.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh enquiry. The Assessing Officer is to make enquiries from the parties who received the commission, especially in light of their affidavits.

The Tribunal set aside the impugned order and restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh enquiry. This was done to allow for further investigation into the genuineness of the commission payments, especially in light of affidavits filed by the recipients.

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence, including bank statements and cash book entries, to explain the source of the cash deposits. The AO's presumption that the cash was not available or had been used elsewhere was not supported by evidence.

The Tribunal held that merely filing an appeal is insufficient; it requires effective pursuit. Citing Supreme Court and High Court judgments, the Tribunal found the appeal liable for dismissal due to non-prosecution.

The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for fresh adjudication. The AO is directed to verify the documents submitted by the assessee regarding the agricultural income of the share applicants.

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer failed to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value of the land. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was directed to adopt the rate of Rs. 900/- per sq. mts. as determined by the CIT(A) in an earlier order.

The Tribunal held that as per CBDT Circular No. 3 of 2018, appeals with a tax effect not exceeding Rs. 20 lacs are to be dismissed or withdrawn. The Revenue's appeals were therefore dismissed in limine.